An Evacuation of the Singapore Model of Public Enterprise System and Lessons to learn Developing

Countries.

Introduction

Singapore has achieved extraordinary economic growth, rising from third to first world status in less

than four decades. Furthermore, public enterprises had become a catalyst for Singapore's economic

development, rather than an impediment, as they are often in other developing countries. By 2004,

Singapore was reconsidering the position of public enterprises, in part because economic growth had

slowed and the country's policy appeared to be faltering. Critics argued that public corporations lacked

the agility required to compete in an increasingly competitive global economy, while defenders argued

that a small country like Singapore could not afford to rely on private companies to make the strategic

investments necessary to remain competitive. Singapore's debate posed intriguing questions for other

developing nations.

For instance, Anwar and Sam (2006) had argued that it is interesting to note that most Singaporean

public sector corporations have registered a strong growth over several years despite the cons

associated with the public enterprises. Similarly, Anwar and Sam (2006) wrote that Singapore’s public

sector management is a relevant model for private sector corporations to emulate. The city-state is

selected because of its success in curbing corruption within its public sector. For example, Transparency

International (TI), a non-governmental organisation established in 1993, has constantly ranked

Singapore as one of the 10 least corrupt Countries (based on its Corruption Perceptions Index). In

addition, Hong Kong based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy Limited (PERC) has ranked Singapore

as the least corrupt among a handful of countries it surveyed. These achievements are crucial because

they help explain higher standards of governance in statutory boards and GLCs where public sector

representation tends to dominate. As Worthington (2003) notes, almost two-thirds of the

representation on statutory boards came from the public sector. Considering an evacuation of the

model of Singapore model may be unwise.

What is public enterprise?

Public enterprise can be defined as government-owned or state-owned enterprises. (SOEs) that

generate all or most of their revenues from the sale of goods and services. In other words, a public

enterprise refers to an institution, either entirely owned by the Federal government or state

government. Public enterprises have two defining characteristics: they are government owned and

controlled; and they are engaged in business activities. Ideally, when making statistical comparisons,

these characteristics should be given a precise and consistent meaning, but, in practice, this is difficult to

do.

This is partly because it is difficult to draw a clear-cut and economically useful boundary around the

public enterprise sector, especially as, in most countries, virtually all enterprises are subject to some

degree of government control (Jones, 2005).

Why should Singapore Model of Public Enterprise System be considered?

Singapore's civil service and legislative boards account for a sizable portion of the country's public

sector agencies. Strengthening the civil service was a higher priority in Singapore's early years of self-

government. The government's efforts have primarily been directed at recruiting qualified applicants for

civil service positions. As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew said in his speech to the Public Utilities

Board (reproduced in Lee, 1965):

"my issue at the time was how to recruit large men for the large jobs that were vacant. There were

plenty of large chairs available. The issue was how to locate gentlemen with sufficient ballast to fill these

large chairs" (quoted from Seah, 1985, p. 100).

Singapore's civil service is now widely regarded as one of the least corrupt in the world. A critical

component of this performance is increased autonomy for ministries, departments, and agencies, as

well as increased discipline demanded of them in managing their budgets, personnel, and revenues

(Jones, 2005). Statutory boards are self-governing government entities created by special legislation of

Parliament to carry out specific functions. They have the autonomy, for example, to hire the best

applicants and to decide their compensation packages and career progression without being constrained

by the rigidity of the civil service's procedures. Statutory bodies such as the Economic Development

Board (EDB) and the Housing Development Board (HDB) have been instrumental in Singapore's

economic and social development (Quah, 1985; Lee, 1989).

Moreover, the pros of Singapore Model of Public Enterprise System Cannot be overemphasized. The

following are the reasons Singapore public enterprises should be considered:

• Charges reasonable rates.

• Provide basic services such as education and health care for free or at a reduced cost.

• Ensures effective industry regulation.

• Exceptional administrative support.

• Funding for research and development should be made available.

• Private monopolies that would result in skyrocketing rates are avoided.

• International economic denominations are avoided.

In as much as the Singapore model of public enterprises is worthy of emulation. It should be noted that

it has certain come as listed below.

Why should Singapore Model of Public Enterprise System Be evacuated?

Singapore model of public enterprises has alot of benefits for any developing nation. However, it is

imperative for leaders and citizens in developing countries to know that there are certain come

associated with Singapore model of public enterprises as list below:

• Governments must bear losses or else face increased taxation.

• If a company is a monopoly, consumers' choices are limited to the state.

• Regulations can be enacted to restrain the growth of private enterprise.

• An absence of competition can result in inefficiency and increased prices.

• Government meddling.

• I don't give a damn attitude.

• Political compulsion.

• Corruption and financial embezzlement.

• Fear of nationalization can deter foreign investment.

Lessons To learn From Singapore Model of Public Enterprises systems

The public enterprises model of Singapore has been greatly talked about as it was an unexpected key

instrument in the development of the nations economy. More over, it was a first hand means for an

enduring success for Singapore. As Chin (2015) would put it, Economic growth, full employment, strong

results for social indicators such as life expectancy, education and housing - Singapore ticks all the

boxes. Not bad for a tiny city-state of 5.4 million people with few or no natural resources and which only

gained independence in 1965. So, how have they done it?

Under the leadership of the late Lee Kuan Yew, the city-state's first prime minister, who governed for

more than three decades from 1959 to 1990, Singapore became a hub for foreign trade and investment,

evolving into an international business and financial centre as well as a cutting-edge manufacturing

location. Today, entrepreneurs can start their own company in under three hours, as well as enjoy

competitive tax rates and free trade. In April 2014, Singapore was ranked the easiest place to do

business by US-based research institute Business Environment Risk Intelligence (BERI). This is due, in

large part, to the pro-business Singapore government, which includes the Singapore Economic

Development Board (EDB). Therefore, developing nations like Nigeria have the following to learn from

Singapore model of public enterprises.

1. Developing nations must know that it can work for them too.

Some of the key attributes that have ensured the success of Singapore's public sector may not

necessarily work for all countries, because context matters. But some have clearly stood the test of time.

Being able to set a direction that was unambiguous and clear was very important in the early days when

there was a lot more volatility and uncertainty.

2. Good leadership is vital.

Strong leadership is just as pertinent today, with current leaders able to generate support and ideas

from key stakeholders and the general public, rather than just implementing a top-down approach. The

former President for Singapore noted that good leadership is something the public sector invests in for

all of the thousands of civil servants who work here and it has to continue to evolve because the style of

leadership has changed - the needs and aspirations of citizens and what citizens expect are very

different compared to 20 years ago, and 20 years from now they will again be different. But while

leadership style changes, the quality of leadership must remain high.

3. Meritocracy
Meritocracy Is a key tenet under founding prime minister Lee, which continues to thrive in the present

day. “Meritocracy is about making sure that regardless of where you start from, what is more important

is how good you are, your potential to go far and how society can ensure that you have the

opportunities to pursue all you can achieve. The public sector believes that Singapore deserves the best

and whoever takes on leadership roles represents some of the best that Singapore can offer. And

impartiality, too, is vital. “We have to act with conviction but, at the end of the day, it is the political

leaders and the voters who decide what it is they want for Singapore and the civil servants have to

deliver it. So we have to be impartial about the way we ultimately deliver on the policies.

Conclusion

It has been established that Singapore model of public enterprises is worthy of emulation despite the

cops of any public enterprises. Every developing nation must learn from their model of public

enterprises if they want to achieve the enduring success and growth.

References

Anwar, S. & Sam, C. (2006). Singaporean Style of Public Sector Corporate Governance: Can the Private

Sector Corporations Emulate the Public Sector Practices? New Zealand Journal of Asian Studies, 8 (1), 41-

68.

Seah, C. M., (1985), The Civil Service, in: Jon Quah, Chan, H. C. and Seah, C.M., (eds.) Government and

Politics of Singapore, Oxford University Press, Singapore.

Jones, D. S., (2005). Recent Changes in the Financial Management of the Singapore Civil Service: The

Adoption of Resource Accounting,Internal Charging and Revenue Retention, in: Anthony B.L.

Cheung,ed., Public Sector Reform in East Asia: Reform Issues and Challenges in Japan, Korea, Singapore

and Hong Kong, The Chinese University Press, Hong Kong

Lee, K.Y., (1965). The PM Mr Lee Kuan Yew Speaks to Civil Servants. BAKTI: Journal of the Political Study

Centre, 3(2),, 1-11

Quah, J., 1985, Statutory Boards, in: Jon Quah, H.C. Chan and C.M. Seah,eds., Government and Politics of

Singapore, Oxford University Press, Singapore.

Problems of definition are discussed by, for example, Leroy P. Jones in Public Enterprise and Economic

Development: The Korean Case (Seoul: Korean Development Institute, 2005), pp. 22–42, and by Andreja

Böhm in “The Concept, Definition and Classification of Public Enterprises,” Public Enterprise, Vol. 1, No.

4 (1981), pp. 72–78.

Chin, V. (2015). Sustaining Singapore's success: lessons of growth and delivery. Retrieved from

https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/insights/sustaining-singapores-success